SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships • Hacker News Board

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#401

Post by serf » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:22 AM UTC

googlemike wrote: post #309

itsaidpens wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: I'd argue that you not eating out, getting socialized, and traveling actually made you less of a well-rounded individual and you probably should be penalized for those things. Colleges need diversity. They don't need the same kind of kid replicated 10,000 times. Racquetball, violin, AP calculus does not an interesting campus make.

Why do they need diversity?

presumably due to the same reason that it's found biologically -- if you only have a hammer you'll find yourself caught with your pants down when you need to tighten a bolt.

Homogeneity can traditionally be attacked by exploiting a vector that the entire crowd is weak towards. Randomness helps to solve this problem on a macro level by varying the crowds weaknesses and strengths from individual to individual.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#402

Post by mffnbs » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

Chazprime wrote: post #390

ceph_ wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of white supremacy isn't expanding, but those are two topics white supremacists vocally support.

Stephen Fry might disagree with you there.

Being conscious of dog whistles isn't expanding the white supremacist classification. A single false positive by Twitter of all places isn't indicative of a trend.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#403

Post by ars » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

jasonhansel wrote: post #266

My (apparently unpopular?) opinion: this is an excellent move. Colleges already try to take adversity into account in admissions. Now they'll have a more uniform, clear, objective, and standardized way of doing so. I do wish it was more transparent--i.e. that students could see their own scores--but this is clearly a step in the right direction.

Clearly the best option is to live in an affluent area for most of high school and do really well.

Then one month before SAT move to a very poor area and attend the worst high school you can find.

That way you got a good adversity score as well.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#404

Post by stanfordkid » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

Shouldn't college admissions officers already be able to take this into account based on data in the application? I am pretty neutral on it, but think the idea is pretty pointless and just leads to people trying to game the system, rather than having decision making criterion distributed.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#405

Post by zasz » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:25 AM UTC

rhegart wrote: post #131

Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving...I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.

As a fellow Asian whose parents also sacrificed a lot, I'm sympathetic, but I would urge you to consider a couple things:

1. Like it or not, plenty of families in America have had it worse than you had, and would not find it at all impressive that you have never gone on a vacation or eaten out.

2. You should save your anger for the huge number of spots saved for legacies and athletes. Being the child of alumni means you have a 45% greater chance of getting into a college. (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/07/harvards-freshman-class-is-m...) If you must get angry at someone, don't get angry at the people who are struggling as hard, or harder than you are--get mad at the rich assholes who quietly sail into these so-called elite institutions.

3. If you have good grades and good test scores, there are tons of good colleges you can go to. They just might not be Harvard. Is not going to Harvard worth pushing yourself to the right? Worth aligning yourself with the guy pushing a trade war with China, which is going to do wonders for the image of Asians in America? Personally, I don't think so.

4. The adversity score is designed to ensure equality of opportunity, dude. If they were capable of making a good adversity score, they would certainly take into account your family's struggles. They probably won't be able to, because these things are unquantifiable, but frankly the SAT and the whole college admissions process are bullshit anyway, and you'll be happier once you let go of your belief that because your family sacrificed a lot, the system ought to reward you. It should, but it won't, because it's a capricious and unfair monster.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#406

Post by [deleted] » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:26 AM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #356

thosakwe wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. So, a separate number being added to College Board's overall package is secret discrimination against Asian students? The "adversity score," according to the article, is calculated based on 15 different factors. The two listed (relative quality of the student’s high school and the crime rate/poverty level of the student’s home neighborhood) are not directly tied to…

I did pretty well on the standardized tests in high school. If this had existed, i likely would have scored higher than average on adversity. I would be pissed to find out my score was altered in any way due to factors outside my control. If I do well on something, i want it to be from my own merits, whatever my current situation. I don't want to be pandered to because i grew up poor in a shitty neighbourhood. Everyt…

[deleted]

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#407

Post by flukus » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:28 AM UTC

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #165

rhegart wrote: post #131

Equality of opportunity over outcome for me. Now Asians will be discriminated against secretly. My family sacrificing vacations and eating out for 12 years (literally ate out 5x max) to afford to live in a good school district shouldn’t penalize us. My dad commuted 4 hours daily instead of moving...I’m getting pushed further and further to the right.

>I’m getting pushed further and further to the right. Maybe not, it feels like to me that the Overton window[0] has been sliding left. My views on freedom of speech made me a 'leftist commie' when I used them to defend South Park and Eminem now most often I'm accused being 'alt-right' by those who disagree with those same views. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Not just freedom of speech, supporting trumps new tariffs would have made you a pinko commie as little as 20 years ago, protests against global trade (like the battle of Seattle) had a sizable trade union contingent. So many that consider themselves left today seem to define it in opposition to what the right is doing, not from valuing egalitarianism.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#408

Post by grawprog » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

mgkimsal wrote: post #367

grawprog wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did pretty well on the standardized tests in high school. If this had existed, i likely would have scored higher than average on adversity. I would be pissed to find out my score was altered in any way due to factors outside my control. If I do well on something, i want it to be from my own merits, whatever my current situation. I don't want to be pandered to because i grew up poor in a shitty neighbourhood. Everyt…

> because of my own intelligence and skill... Fuck anyone giving me points for things i didn't work for or that are outside my control... Your "intelligence" is definitely one of those things completely outside your control. What you've done with it is at least partially under your control, but you probably weren't born with any sort of brain disorder, for example. EDIT: adding on things like your visual appearance -…

How? I chose to learn the things i learned outside of school and to an extent the things i chose to learn in both high school and university. I didn't have to learn those things. I could have spent my time watching tv or doing other things. I know the things i know because i spent time and effort learning them.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#409

Post by equalarrow » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

jachee wrote: post #259

GhostVII wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and every non-privileged person who gets in also hurts others who are in the same situation, since they have taken up a spot. The difference is in this case there is an actual policy which is actively punishing people for being in a perceived state of privilege.

Punishing those in privilege is how you achieve equality. They can't give up that inequality voluntarily, and wouldn't if they could.

Wow... And there you go.

Re: SAT to Add ‘Adversity Score’ That Rates Students’ Hardships

#410

Post by serf » Fri, May 17, 2019, 1:29 AM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #261

itsaidpens wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devil's advocate: I'd argue that you not eating out, getting socialized, and traveling actually made you less of a well-rounded individual and you probably should be penalized for those things. Colleges need diversity. They don't need the same kind of kid replicated 10,000 times. Racquetball, violin, AP calculus does not an interesting campus make.

I would need some very heavy proof that traveling (aka vacations where you instagram breakfast with a view) and eating at restaurants makes someone a well rounded individual, not to mention someone who “adds” to an educational institute. I would put my chips on someone who has at least proven themselves academically.

>I would put my chips on someone who has at least proven themselves academically.

everyone seems to be conflating academics with person-building in this thread.

Why don't these same people seem to have any problem with non-academic scholarships?

Here's the grand reason why it's a good idea to make schools mixing-pots : You can expose the really effective students to ideas and concepts that they may have never experienced, which they may use more constructively than other individuals.

In other words : Colleges need people that create the idea of Napster , but they also need the folks that can implement it. Both groups are only marginally effective without the other.

Similar line of philosophical questioning : 'Why do managers exist?'